Some first impressions after coming home @ 0:40AM...When I opened the box I expected this lens to feel heavier, my 17-35 F2.8 was 745gramms , this one is 680gramms, but it "seems" significantly lighter,...AF is very fast on my D700, even in low light.VR seems to do very well @ real slow shutter speeds.Seems tacksharp, even wide open...Very well built, and a "nice" lens...

Some very first images:

VR seems to work, underneath picture was taken @32mm(of course handhold), iso 640 and 1/4th second... Only lighting was the reflection of the candlelight...

35mm, F4 and 1/8 sec, handhold.

35mm, F4 and 1/25sec, handhold

and a 100% crop from the above picture

I plan to go out to take some pictures tomorrow with subjects and situations this kind of lens is intended for, I hope the weather is fine, otherwise it will be delayed a couple of days...

**************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************If you have questions, thoughts, your own findings, critiques or remarks related to this or other topics on this forum: Join this forum starting by your registration now!!Everybody is welcome. Read about how to make a registration here.Sincerely yours,Rita B, site owner.**************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************

I was happy the sun was shining this morning, so I went out to make some pictures with my 16-35 on D700...

After having owned the 17-35 F2.8 for approx 5 years, you automatically tend to compare with that lens. Well, the 17-35 F2.8 might have been a great lens on DX, on FX the 16-35 AF-S VR is simply in another league. After approx 3 hours of shooting, I'm very happy I sold my 17-35 F2.8 a couple of months ago...

What's better with the new version:

Sharpness and microcontrast is in the same league than the 24-70 F2.8 and/or 70-200VRII while TMHO the 17-35 was not. When I was comparing my 17-35 F2.8 with my 17-55 F2.8 on DX approx 3 years ago, then already the 17-55 was definitely sharper and more contrasty while delivering more vibrant colours.PS: Bjorn Rorslett mentioned in his 17-35 F2.8 reviewthat there have been some important sample variation with the 17-35 F2.8, so perhaps I had one that was made on a rainy monday morning...

It has an amazing corner sharpness compared with the 17-35 F2.8...

It has VR...

While a picture says more than a thousand words, some pictures...

All underneath pictures have been taken in RAW and are resized to suit for this review and according to the max image size for this forum. Some of the pictures show massive perspective distorsion but this was done on purpose. Sometimes perspective distorsion can be used for the photographic effect, and sometimes to give some kind of panoramic view of a subject or space too big to fit in a picture taken without this effect.

A view on the market place of Gravelines...16-35 @ 16mm, iso200, F8, 1/800sec.

Hostellerie du Beffroi, a great restaurant in this nice town...16-35@16mm, iso 1250, F11 and 1/320sec

**************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************If you have questions, thoughts, your own findings, critiques or remarks related to this or other topics on this forum: Join this forum starting by your registration now!!Everybody is welcome. Read about how to make a registration here.Sincerely yours,Rita B, site owner.**************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************

I had a couple of requires to post a sample picture with the 16-35 F4 AF-SVR @ 16mm and F4 in relation to vignetting and corner sharpness..., Here we go...

First of all the scene as originally captured, resized from NEF to websize 800x532pix . The picture was taken with16-35 on my D700 @ 16mm, iso 400, F4 and 1/2500sec

In the top left and top right corner you can see that vignetting, -even wide open and @ 16mm-, is extremely well controlled.

Let me add that I find the exposure of the picture quite poor, because it was taken on a moment where the sun just disappeared for a couple of second behind a cloud, the expose of my D700 was somewhat fooled...

To enable to check about corner sharpness I wanted to crop the corner right under, but as it was somewhat dark, I lifted the shadows with 23% in CaptureNX2.The original proportioned image after a 23% shadow lift in PP:

And finally a 100% crop of the right bottom corner:

16-35 at 16mm and F4 resolution sample with 100% crop

Also resolution at 16mm and F4 is quite good . (Of course it gets better to excellent while stopping down)A sample:

And a 100% crop straight from the original file:

If you want much better IQ at 16mm and wide open, you should go for the 14-24 which is very sharp already at F2.8.

Conclusion:TMHO, and after having owned the 17-35 F2.8 for over 5 years and having tested the 14-24 F2.8 from my friend Dr. Dusslier, this is simply an incredible achievement from the Nikon technical staff...Kindest regards;,Stanyhttp://www.nikonuser.info

**************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************If you have questions, thoughts, your own findings, critiques or remarks related to this or other topics on this forum: Join this forum starting by your registration now!!Everybody is welcome. Read about how to make a registration here.Sincerely yours,Rita B, site owner.**************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************

Thanks for posting the 16mm/f4 image, and happy to have found your forum. I look forward to whatever other images you can post. A few more indoors at 16mm and f/4 would be great if you get to it. My hope would be a room with nice ambient light, albeit very low exposure. My use for the lens would be both outdoor and indoor as well.

When you shoot with the lens indoors, are you aware of the darker viewfinder due to the lens being f/4? Also in low light is the auto focus holding up with f/4 as the maximum aperture?

I'm a Canon shooter (author of The Canon EOS 1Ds Mark III Digital Field Guide for Wiley Press) who made the switch to Nikon, and is very happy about the move, all in all. Lots to learn, and a few lens decisions to make.

johnkraus wrote:Hi Stany, I'm a Canon shooter (author of The Canon EOS 1Ds Mark III Digital Field Guide for Wiley Press) who made the switch to Nikon, and is very happy about the move, all in all. Lots to learn, and a few lens decisions to make.

Good evening John,Really great news that you joined our forum. If possible I would love to read some Canon comments by you in the appropriate forum section as well.About more samples in lowlight with the nikkor 16-35, I'm working on it in co-operation with Dr. Dusslier who is actually testing my 16-35 on his D3x and D3s. Also Dr. Dusslier will compare the 16-35 with his 14-24... It will take a couple of days more, -perhaps even a week-, before these will be posted.

I'm sorry if this has already been requested. Owning the 17-35mm f2.8, I would appreciated comparison of 100% corner samples with both lenses at f4 and also comparing the 17-35 at f2.8 with the 16-35 at f4.Cheers,Pete

stealth wrote:I'm sorry if this has already been requested. Owning the 17-35mm f2.8, I would appreciated comparison of 100% corner samples with both lenses at f4 and also comparing the 17-35 at f2.8 with the 16-35 at f4.Cheers, Pete

Good evening Pete. Unfortunately I sold my 17-35, -which I had for approx 5 years- a couple of weeks ago but I can assure you that:Corner sharpness of the 16-35 is significantly better than the 17-35It renders more contrasty and somewhat sharper-looking images straight out of the camera.

Thank you for this fine review, and the obvious work that it is taking. It is appreciated. I have a request. Please try to post a 100% corner shot at 16mm of the lens at f8 or f11. As a landscape shooter, this is where I will be shooting. I don't care much how the lens is at f4, but at those higher apertures. I suspect the corners look better at these apertures- is this your experience with the lens?One more question- are any of these shot off of a tripod? I would love to see a few shots at higher apertures, off of a tripod with MLU, at 100% crops- especially the corners at wider focal lengths. I know this is asking a lot, but hey, might as well ask.

Ron wrote:Hi Stany,Thank you for this fine review, and the obvious work that it is taking. It is appreciated. I have a request. Please try to post a 100% corner shot at 16mm of the lens at f8 or f11. As a landscape shooter, this is where I will be shooting. I don't care much how the lens is at f4, but at those higher apertures. I suspect the corners look better at these apertures- is this your experience with the lens?Ron

Goodmorning Ron, thanks for joining.I don't have the exact example picture available but something that might help a little:

16-35 @ 16mm, iso200, 1/60sec, F18. This shot was taken handheld, like all others in this user review.

and a 100% crop from the corner @ bottom right :

Ron wrote:One more question- are any of these shot off of a tripod? I would love to see a few shots at higher apertures, off of a tripod with MLU, at 100% crops- especially the corners at wider focal lengths. I know this is asking a lot, but hey, might as well ask. Thank you,Ron

All shots were taken handheld. The fact that this is the first FX wide angle with VR played a lot in this user review.

Ron wrote:I'm also looking forward to the D3x shots. Thank you,Ron

Dr. Dusslier posted his findings with some first sample pictures here.

danm_cool wrote:Hi Stany, Would it be possible to measure the barrel distorsion at 16mm, it seems pretty high to me, never seen so much distorsion on a Nikon lens before...Thanks, Dan

Hi Dan,After 5 years with the 17-35F2.8 I see distortion control on both lenses to be about equal. The impression of very pronounced distortion you see in the picture above is more perspective distortion related than optical. There are better samples with the 16-35 @ 16mm in this thread.While the 16-35F4 VR is optically a significant improvement over the 17-35F2.8(based on the experience I have with my copies of both lenses), about distortion control the 14-24 F2.8 is much better than the 16-35 until 18mm. From 20 to 35mm the 16-35 is fantastic on all aspects.About useability for common wide angle shooting I prefer the 16-35 anytime over the 14-24 though. For somebody who wants to cover all applications of wide angle photography there are several and very good reasons to own both 14-24 and 16-35, eventually next to tilt and shift lenses for optimal architecture photography.

I'm about to buy a wide angle lens and my choice was the 14-24 that I've tested for one day and liked it. I'm an amateur and by the several reviews I've seen it seems that the 14-24 is THE lens for wide angle shooting.Then the 16-35 arrived with VRII stab and the possibility to attach filters on it etc..

What would be your choice between the two lenses regardless of price tag ? I cannot make decide between the two.

MichelFourkas wrote:Hi. I'm about to buy a wide angle lens and my choice was the 14-24 that I've tested for one day and liked it. I'm an amateur and by the several reviews I've seen it seems that the 14-24 is THE lens for wide angle shooting.Then the 16-35 arrived with VRII stab and the possibility to attach filters on it etc..What would be your choice between the two lenses regardless of price tag ? I cannot make decide between the two.Thanks Michel

Goodmorning Michel. Thanks for joining this forum.14-24 F2.8 and 16-35 VRII are designed for different purposes and for somebody who wants/needs it all, there are several and very good reasons to have both.For architecture and anything in relation to where distortion control is important, there are very good reasons to prefer the 14-24 over the 16-35, next to the benefit of having 2mm wider. For daily usage the 16-35 gets my vote, -by far-, because of the (for myself) more attractive focal range, taking filters(for sunsets etc. ánd lens front element protection)And last but not least for VR... For street photography, visits of musea and similar photographic opportunities/situations with lowlight the VR will show to have a value.Hope this helps.

Thanks a lot Stany for your help, your comments are crystal clear ! I'm not doing architectural photos, I just need a wide angle for landscapes but it must be sharp. Is the 16-35mm sharp comparing to the 14-24mm ? And the filters and the VR thing is a plus for me. I own a Nikon D3S, so the f/4 shouldn't be a problem (I think) but sharpness is important to me.Since I have a 24-70 f/2.8 and the new 70-200 f/2.8 VRII, I liked the idea to have the 14-24 f/2.8 to get the trio complete, but with the 16-35mm now I'm confused.i'll try to get a 16-35mm for a field test when available to compare with the pictures I took with the 14-24mm that I had for a day.

Ok ! I don't have to choose anymore now since I just purchased the 14-24mm, I hope I made the right choice, I chose f/2.8 vs stab, since for landscapes stab is not so important, and in low light for interiors the f/2.8 might do the job (I'm trying to convince myself here )

HI. Hope you have not regretted your 14-24 decision. I have one and was thinking of the 16-35 but might go for the 24-70 and or 24-120 f4 when if comes. Any thoughts on if you would not go for the 16-35

On Dpreview there were a couple of threads who created a total false, negative impression about the 16-35.One of these was about vignetting being very bad @ 16mm and F4, which I respectfully disagree because the 16-35 is doing excellent about vignetting(*), just like about corner sharpness where this lens is doing excellent as well.(*) The above statement is taking in consideration that you use NX2 for RAW convertion while NX2 reads the in camera settings for vignetting control)

Underneath the proof with a picture, before PP and after PP. The vignetting of the 16-35 at 16mm and F4 is so low that there is no problem at all for correction by pulling the vignetting correction slider in ACR or NX2 a little. The vignetting is so low that it even isn't a problem at all to overexpose the corners if you would like to...

The original picture, 16-35F4VR on D700 at 16mm and F4:

And the same picture after pulling the vignetting correction slider too far:

Of course when some people read these headlines their conclusions are drawn already...

Mr. Binghams unhappyness about the 16-35 was the result of a very probable flaw in hist test which leaded him to conlcude that this lens exhibits color shift. The color shift came from some reflections in his test shots though...

If you read the whole threads though, the same Steve Bingham wrote in those threads, also about the 16-35:

SteveBingham wrote:(somewhere in the above mentioned threads on Dpreview)

"As for resolution, at 35mm I was very impressed!"

"Sharp into the corners. At 16mm I needed to go to f8 to be there."

"Center sharpness is almost identical to my 17-35."

and on a remark of mine that the 16-35 produces more vibrant colors and more contrasty images than the 17-35F2.8 because of the nano coating:

"Yes, I too saw this with my other shots. I was pretty surprised at the tonal differences."

"By the way, the lens was very concentric in its sharpness. THAT pleased me..."

Thom Hogan wrote:Should I get the 16-35mm, 17-35mm, or the 14-24mm?We can pretty much eliminate the 17-35mm these days. As good as it was during its day, both the other lenses surpass it, especially in terms of corner sharpness. The big questions then become: do you need to use filters (get the 16-35mm), do you worry about linear distortion (get the 14-24mm), do you know how to frame extremely wide angle (get the 14-24mm), do you need faster apertures (get the 14-24mm), and do you need the most versatile focal range (get the 16-35mm). Resolve those questions and you have your answer.

If you want to read a complete review on the 16-35 F4 VR done by professionels, I strongly recommand n°324 (june 2010 edition) from Chasseur d'Images.It gives a detailed report about how this lens behaves both on D3/D700 and D3X.The results of the tests are very good, with only one weak point like everybody else mentions: its vignetting and distortion @ 16mm.According to the results of this professional test, also mounted on the D3x the 16-35 on the gives an extreme detail rendering (piqué in French) which confirms the enthusiasm and findings of Rudy Dusslier, moderator on this forum.

Please notice that a google or other online translation can sometimes result in funny or even totally wrong contents, so I'll add my free translation as native Flemish citizen who is living many years in France:

Free translation by webmaster wrote: Detail rendering: ...offering a resolution which is perfectly compatible with the resolution of a 24Mpix sensor... with an extreme detail rendering, among the best ever noticed at all focal lenghts."

Also the summary in this review is clear: (free translation) : With exception of the vignetting and distortion @ 16mm, this lens becomes nearly a "obligatory purchase" for every passionated expert...

I was thinking about this lens too, as my 14-24 with the big and delicate front element is not always the best lens to use in crowded and less friendly places. Since I am also using DX format next to FX, I have the Nikon 10-24 AF-S. This works without too much vignetting from 16-18mm on an FX. I have not yet done any real technical tests with it - lack of time, but in any case it yields perfectly usable images for news reporting. I wonder how it would compare to the 16-35 on FX.

Dodi wrote:I was thinking about this lens too, as my 14-24 with the big and delicate front element is not always the best lens to use in crowded and less friendly places. Since I am also using DX format next to FX, I have the Nikon 10-24 AF-S. This works without too much vignetting from 16-18mm on an FX. I have not yet done any real technical tests with it - lack of time, but in any case it yields perfectly usable images for news reporting. I wonder how it would compare to the 16-35 on FX. D.

Hi Dodi,Even "if" your 10-24 on DX is optically on the same level of a 16-35 on FX there will be always the 1½ for D3-D700 to 2½ stops advantage of D3s against D300/D7000 to prefer FX in lowlight. 16-35 range is soo much nicer than 18-24 and corners of the 10-24 at 18-24 will be nowhere like a modern FX lens... 16-35 is not a small lens though...

What I forgot to mention when I wrote this user review 3 years ago is that while used at 24mm, the 16-35 F4 AF-S VR is about the best what you can get, way better than any Nikon or Tamron zoom that starts at 24mm(including the Nikon and tamron 24-70 F2.8), way better than the Nikon 24mm F2.8 AF-D prime and only lagging behind the over priced 24mm F1.4 because of aperture, but with the advantage of having VR.